Are you learning Latin with D'Ooge's Beginners Latin Book? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback and comments from others.

You will see, some sound quite dodgy.
I would greatly appreciate a clear expression of the subjunctive of characteristic. I understand why "Quis est qui suam domum not amet?" is subjunctive and "Caesar est is qui nos ducat" but some which just describe seem indicative sometimes "there were some who didn't want to do it" or the like.

I. 1. In Germaniae silvis sunt multa genera ferarum quae reliquis in locis non sint.
In the forests of Germany there are many species of wild beast that are not to be seen in the remaining places.

2. Erant itinera duo quibus Helvetii domo discedere possent.
There were two ways by which the Helvetii could leave home.

4. Toto frumento rapto, domi nihil erat quo mortem prohibere possent.
With all the grain having been seized, at home there was nothing by which they might be able to prevent death.

5. Romani Galbam ducem creaverunt et summá celeritate profecti sunt.
The Romans chose Galba leader and they set out with the greatest speed.

6. Neque erat tantae multitudinis quisquam qui morari vellet.
Nor was there any one at all of such a great multitude who wanted to delay. (Here why subjunctive...although I've been told that a relative clause describing its antecedent is subjunctive I don't see sometimes why)

7. Germani non ei sunt qui adventum Caesaris vereantur.
The Germans are not those who would fear the arrival of Caesar.
(I understand here...it's not an actual happening just description, so is 6. I know but...)

8. Consulibus occisis erant qui vellent eum regem creare.
Having killed the consuls some wanted to choose him king.
or, After the consuls were killed there were some who wanted to choose him king.
(this could be in the sense of whoever, quiconque, as whoever killed the consuls wanted to choose him king) But then again a natural translation sounds indicative.

9. Pace facta erat nemo qui arma tradere nollet.
Having made peace there was nobody who was not willing to hand over/give up arms.

10. Inter Helvetios quis erat qui nobilior illo esset?
Amongst the Helvetii who there who was more well known than he?
(there is an "is" missing before "qui" yes. This omission annoys me)

II. 1. The Romans called the city Rome.
Romani urbem Romam appellaverunt.

2. The city was called Rome by the Romans.
Roma urbs a Romanis appellata est.

mwah I still don't understand the subjunctive of characteristic. Even if it's "these are the men who are pretty" will it be subjunctive? I understand that "these are the men to be pretty" "hi viri qui pulchri sint"; if some one is to do something because of some quality/characteristic I know it should be subjunctive. Also "quis est qui domum non amet" - I understand why subjunctive here too.
Yet not all relative clauses of description I see a need to insert a subjunctive. dodgy

Well, in phrases as sunt qui or quis est qui...? the use of the subjunctive indicates that you consider some logical class of things (I mean an category of things having some characteristic in common), not about a collection of concrete things in which you noticed personally some characteristic.

Episcopus wrote:6. Neque erat tantae multitudinis quisquam qui morari vellet.Nor was there any one at all of such a great multitude who wanted to delay. (Here why subjunctive...although I've been told that a relative clause describing its antecedent is subjunctive I don't see sometimes why)

I would say "indeterminate" or "abstract" meaning : there was nobody (of any kind)... belonging to the logical class with as characteristic "I want to delay".

7. Germani non ei sunt qui adventum Caesaris vereantur. The Germans are not those who would fear the arrival of Caesar. (I understand here...it's not an actual happening just description, so is 6. I know but...)

The Germans don't belong to the logical class of which the characteristic is "I fear the arrival of Caesar".

8. Consulibus occisis erant qui vellent eum regem creare.Having killed the consuls some wanted to choose him king.or, After the consuls were killed there were some who wanted to choose him king.(this could be in the sense of whoever, quiconque, as whoever killed the consuls wanted to choose him king) But then again a natural translation sounds indicative.

By saying VELLENT you don't need anymore to answer the question : "What are their names ?" You say simply : "Take into account a class of men who want..."

10. Inter Helvetios quis erat qui nobilior illo esset?Amongst the Helvetii who there who was more well known than he?(there is an "is" missing before "qui" yes. This omission annoys me)

Don't be annoyed. The antecedent of QUI is QUIS. There is no need for an IS : "who was the one that..."